Annette Hanson, MD, Ron Pies, MD, and Mark Komrad, MD
Authors respond to “How Should Physicians Care for Dying Patients with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis?” by arguing that patients’ motives for accessing death with dignity laws should be thoroughly explored and that temporarily limiting patient autonomy can promote well-being at the end of life.
AMA J Ethics. 2018;20(11):E1107-1109. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2018.1107.
Alexander Craig, MPhil and Elizabeth Dzeng, MD, PhD, MPH
Responding to “Added Points of Concern about Caring for Dying Patients,” authors argue that physicians’ refusal to prescribe lethal drugs in accordance with states’ death with dignity laws could damage patient-physician relationships and harm patients.
AMA J Ethics. 2018;20(11):E1110-1112. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2018.1110.
Clarissa G. Barnes, Frederick L. Brancati, MD, MHS, and Tiffany L. Gary, PhD, MHS
To combat the rising incidence of type 2 diabetes, New York City requires laboratories with electronic reporting capacity to upload data on hemoglobin A1c measurements to a city department of health registry.
The Department of Health and Human Service's decision to include a religious exemption to its requirement that private health plans cover contraception without patient cost-sharing raises questions about whether such an exemption appropriately balances the needs, beliefs, rights, and obligations of all affected.
Qualifying conscience protections for institutions with requirements that they minimize hardship caused to the patient would prevent religious institutions from acting as a choke point on the path to services.
If employees of religious institutions whose consciences conflict with those of their employers were to be granted legal protection for positive claims of conscience, the religious freedom of institutions within which they work would be gravely compromised.